Intimate partner violence (IPV) can affect health in ways that are often overlooked. A new framework developed by Candace Burton, associate professor and director of 91亚色's School of Nursing, aims to help researchers study those impacts.
Burton has worked to increase awareness of IPV as a major public health issue that she says affects 25 per cent of women and 10 per cent of men worldwide.
Despite its prevalence, IPV remains understudied. Burton says that gap can have significant consequences.
"Without more attention to IPV in health research, it is impossible to fully understand its ramifications for the health of survivors and their families," she says, noting it can be a significant source of physical and psychosocial stress, but not one always recognized as part of a person's overall health burden.
A key challenge is measuring IPV consistently.
While often associated with physical abuse, IPV can also include coercive control over health care access or reproductive decisions, psychological abuse, financial abuse, sexual violence and other forms of controlling behaviours.
Because measures are designed for diverse purposes, populations and forms of abuse, researchers examining similar questions may use different approaches. This, says Burton, can make it difficult to compare findings across studies, estimate the prevalence of IPV and assess its effects on health.
Important links between IPV and health outcomes may also go unnoticed, limiting researchers' ability to understand the scope of the issue and identify effective interventions.
To help address that challenge, Burton and her colleagues developed a practical framework to guide the selection of IPV assessment tools. The team reviewed existing research on IPV measurement instruments, examining common themes, challenges, strengths and limitations.
The review 鈥 published 鈥 found that resources designed for one purpose may not be suitable for another. A questionnaire used to screen for abuse, for example, may not be the best choice for a study seeking detailed information about the frequency or severity of violence. Similarly, a measure developed for one population or setting may not perform as well in another.
Burton and her colleagues identified six factors researchers should consider when selecting an IPV tool: the study purpose, population, type of violence being assessed, time period, research context and data collection method.
Those findings informed a framework and checklist that help researchers identify measures aligned with their study goals. Rather than recommending a single "best" measure, the guide helps researchers in make informed decisions about which tool fits their research questions.
A tool focused on one form of abuse or population may overlook experiences critical to understanding health outcomes, Burton says, whi may leading scholars to underestimate the prevalence or effects of IPV. That matters because IPV can influence health in ways that are not always apparent to researchers, practitioners or patients.
"It affects so many people, and when it isn't identified, it complicates and even masks our understanding of some health issues," she says.
Providing researchers with appropriate tools can help clarify the complexities of IPV and support more consistent study of its health effects.
"With this paper, we hope to increase the likelihood that someone develops sufficient confidence in their ability to work with these measures and incorporate them into their work,鈥 says Burton.
To put the framework into practice, Burton and her colleagues also developed practical supporting resources including , an online toolkit that contains a searchable database of IPV measures organized around the guide鈥檚 categories. Researchers can use it to identify instruments that fit their study's purpose, population and context.
Burton hopes her work to advance understanding of IPV research will strengthen and improve the evidence used to inform future studies, interventions and care.